Thing is, FO getting the B bonus neither upset balance or broke the game with side effects in any way I've ever seen or heard anyone mention. If anything getting things targeted is a bit weak in N3.

Click to expand...

I think this FAQ is about rules consistency, structure, and intent. CB created the Burst bonus to be used with BS weapons. The skills/equipment called out in the FAQ were probably not designed to be treated as BS Weapons. It's only the poor choice of wording and labels in the skills that caused problems.

The best solution is to fix the words and labels used in those skills to eliminate confusion. However CB has often shown they prefer not to change existing rules. They prefer to add new rules or FAQs to try and get things back on track.

So it's not about how playable FO getting the Burst bonus is... it's about not opening the door for all other/future skills to get the Burst bonus. We can argue/discuss how we feel about that, but it's a design decision not up to us in the end.

I'm with you, I'd be for anything that removes all those terms or labels that do nothing but add confusion and problems.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't the existence of the labels, it's their very unclear and inconsistent usage. Many of issues with "nested" orders (and I put it in quotes because it's not really nested) such as Spec Fire Suprise Shot and Triangulated Fire Suprise Shot would go away if the labels were used consistently and the rules referred to things by label. The only ruling we have for all things with the BS Attack label functioning the same was first introduced in the FAQ a year and a half ago and in the context of a coordinated order. If the rule said "The user may declare a skill with the BS Attack label" instead of "The user may declare a BS Attack" so much confusion would be forgone...

Fine... it is a BS attack that allows you to do an attack (not BS attack) with a BS weapon and for reasons of gameplay it is decreed that it does not get B bonus, mostly because this and the other skills and equipment mentioned were never intended to get a B bonus and getting it either upsets the balance or creates side effects that kinda break the game.

Warcor

I don't know what the problem was (i think it generated elsewhere, with other equipments/skills and the resulting list of similar items) but...

What the hell you need more than an official statement that rules out that FO is not a weapon? Do we still need to argue if it is or not? The Almighty Creator (of the game) decided it is not.
So, IT IS NOT. End of story.

Click to expand...

Please, guys, keep it moderate.
As far as I understand the main issue, it is not (primarily) about the intention of the rule, which is quite clear. It is about the way the rule is "explained", which >seems< to be a logical and plausible puzzle-piece, but is not fitting.

B) Try to understand the inner workings of the rule-system. And keep asking until...
a) there is a satisfying answer.
b) it becomes undeniable, that there is something wrong.
c) because of the ruckus the attention is shifted towards FO and the FAQ/rules are changed, while we are still in progress to discuss a) and b).

I would like to ask those who have chosen A) to not suppress discussion between those who work on B) , please.
And don't get mad at the spicy clickbait-title. It is a thesis to support B) b) - Nothing more.

Please, guys, keep it moderate.
As far as I understand the main issue, it is not (primarily) about the intention of the rule, which is quite clear. It is about the way the rule is "explained", which >seems< to be a logical and plausible puzzle-piece, but is not fitting.

B) Try to understand the inner workings of the rule-system. And keep asking until...
a) there is a satisfying answer.
b) it becomes undeniable, that there is something wrong.
c) because of the ruckus the attention is shifted towards FO and the FAQ/rules are changed, while we are still in progress to discuss a) and b).

I would like to ask those who have chosen A) to not suppress discussion between those who work on B) , please.
And don't get mad at the spicy clickbait-title. It is a thesis to support B) b) - Nothing more.

Click to expand...

It's very dishonest to ask for help with understanding the system when you perfectly understand the system but want to change it. So no, don't rush B. If you want to raise awareness or create debate, then do so in the Access Guide forums and be honest that that is what you're actually trying to do instead of pretending to be clueless in order to goad people to try and help you as means of creating debate.

It's very dishonest to ask for help with understanding the system when you perfectly understand the system but want to change it. So no, don't rush B. If you want to raise awareness or create debate, then do so in the Access Guide forums and be honest that that is what you're actually trying to do instead of pretending to be clueless in order to goad people to try and help you as means of creating debate.

Click to expand...

If you're confident in your interpretation of a rule, isn't that enough for you? Tell people how a rule is played if they ask and show them why it's played that way if they ask that too. But when those people don't see the same 'why' or disagree, things go badly. The community falls back on their claim there is no other interpretation and the other side just doesn't get it. In some cases, call the other side a troll and worse, or as you've said, dishonest. Why not just walk away if you're unwilling to discuss it objectively?

It's no wonder popular opinion is so strong here. People fall in line because they've seen what happens when they stand up for their own opinion. So what you call dishonest @Mahtamori , I call staying strong in the face of this communities popular opinion. I already took a year break from this forum because of the toxic way you guys treat opposing opinions.

When trying to make sense of a rule I ask questions to first see if I've made some mistake in interpreting the rule. If I have, great, problem solved. If not, i look to see if the explanations from others, on how to interpret the rule, make sense. I'm not going to settle for rule explanations that have holes or conflicts within the RAW. I'm certainly not going to teach others that explanation either. For me, there's two typical ways to understand and play the rules.

Follow the structure and terms within the rules, resulting in one outcome.

Recognize the rule is unclear and open for interpretation. Play as per CB's ruling, Communities ruling, or dealers choice.

However my process is near impossible to follow here because this community explains things as:

Follow the structure and terms within the rules, resulting in CB's or the Communities ruling.

There is no number 2.

This is where things heat up. This community rarely ever admits a rule is open for interpretation. The closest it ever gets is, the community admits the rule could be worded better but the way to play it is clear and obvious. I've read that statement far too many times. 'Could be better', 'clear and obvious', Contradictory much?

It's not dishonest to want to hear another opinion on how to read these rules. It's not dishonest to disagree with that opinion. Whether or not I understand the system is immaterial. If people are going to continue claiming the system clearly and obviously leads us to their interpretation only, I'm going to disagree when appropriate. This is not dishonest. Straw that broke the camels back, letting off steam, take your pick... I'm really sick and fucking tired of the bullshit coming out of the mouths of some people here. Yes, I very much include you among them.

@Daniel Darko has made a very reasonable request. I only wish there were people like him in this rules section giving their opinion on RAW.

A tantrum is a tantrum. When you explode on someone, it appears as a tantrum to me and guess what? I am going to call you on it.

That apparently offends you. Life is tough!

Click to expand...

Tantrum? Explode on someone? Go ahead and call me out if that's what you think, but your analysis and conclusion is terrible so I'm calling you out on that.

I wrote a very calm and lengthy response above. Even before I said how I was feeling I prefaced it with more detail. That is completely uncharacteristic of a tantrum. Then i wrote one sentence with emotion, out of how many in that post and this thread? You chose to focus on that and ignore the post I was responding to that claimed dishonesty.

Warcor

Tantrum? Explode on someone? Go ahead and call me out if that's what you think, but your analysis and conclusion is terrible so I'm calling you out on that.

I wrote a very calm and lengthy response above. Even before I said how I was feeling I prefaced it with more detail. That is completely uncharacteristic of a tantrum. Then i wrote one sentence with emotion, out of how many in that post and this thread? You chose to focus on that and ignore the post I was responding to that claimed dishonesty.

I responded to you in kind.

Click to expand...

This is not the first time you have been called out for the perceived tone of your posts. I would appreciate it if you would take this as honest feedback and consider how your writing style reads to others.

Warcor

If you're confident in your interpretation of a rule, isn't that enough for you? Tell people how a rule is played if they ask and show them why it's played that way if they ask that too. But when those people don't see the same 'why' or disagree, things go badly. The community falls back on their claim there is no other interpretation and the other side just doesn't get it. In some cases, call the other side a troll and worse, or as you've said, dishonest. Why not just walk away if you're unwilling to discuss it objectively?

It's no wonder popular opinion is so strong here. People fall in line because they've seen what happens when they stand up for their own opinion. So what you call dishonest @Mahtamori , I call staying strong in the face of this communities popular opinion. I already took a year break from this forum because of the toxic way you guys treat opposing opinions.

When trying to make sense of a rule I ask questions to first see if I've made some mistake in interpreting the rule. If I have, great, problem solved. If not, i look to see if the explanations from others, on how to interpret the rule, make sense. I'm not going to settle for rule explanations that have holes or conflicts within the RAW. I'm certainly not going to teach others that explanation either. For me, there's two typical ways to understand and play the rules.

Follow the structure and terms within the rules, resulting in one outcome.

Recognize the rule is unclear and open for interpretation. Play as per CB's ruling, Communities ruling, or dealers choice.

However my process is near impossible to follow here because this community explains things as:

Follow the structure and terms within the rules, resulting in CB's or the Communities ruling.

There is no number 2.

This is where things heat up. This community rarely ever admits a rule is open for interpretation. The closest it ever gets is, the community admits the rule could be worded better but the way to play it is clear and obvious. I've read that statement far too many times. 'Could be better', 'clear and obvious', Contradictory much?

It's not dishonest to want to hear another opinion on how to read these rules. It's not dishonest to disagree with that opinion. Whether or not I understand the system is immaterial. If people are going to continue claiming the system clearly and obviously leads us to their interpretation only, I'm going to disagree when appropriate. This is not dishonest. Straw that broke the camels back, letting off steam, take your pick... I'm really sick and fucking tired of the bullshit coming out of the mouths of some people here. Yes, I very much include you among them.

@Daniel Darko has made a very reasonable request. I only wish there were people like him in this rules section giving their opinion on RAW.

Click to expand...

Re: rules interpretation - I get that you’re frustrated, and I know you and I have butted heads a few times.

I will concede up front that Infinity’s rules are not always written perfectly. N3 was a big step up from 2nd edition, but there’s still a long way they could go.

My #1 goal is to play the game in a way that is mutually enjoyable to me and my opponent. If there is a gap or inconsistency in a rule, that is what I use as my guiding light.

I get the impression that your #1 goal is to parse the Infinity rules as a large, complex, self-consistent system. Honestly, I think that sounds really frustrating.

There are errors. There are inconsistencies. When we find them, we do talk about them - but we talk about them in a way that is constructive to achieving desired gameplay outcomes. To give you a concrete example of what I mean: when you have proposed rewordings of rules that generate the “consensus” outcomes, you have received much more positive responses than when you have told us that we’re all wrong for reading it the way we do. This isn’t simply because you’re catering to our preconceived notions; rather it’s because it looks like you’re trying to make the game better, rather than that you’re trying to find holes and tear them open, and breaking the game in the process.

Tantrum? Explode on someone? Go ahead and call me out if that's what you think, but your analysis and conclusion is terrible so I'm calling you out on that.

I wrote a very calm and lengthy response above. Even before I said how I was feeling I prefaced it with more detail. That is completely uncharacteristic of a tantrum. Then i wrote one sentence with emotion, out of how many in that post and this thread? You chose to focus on that and ignore the post I was responding to that claimed dishonesty.

I responded to you in kind.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Perception is a bitch. I see tantrum, you do not.

I truly hope you can find peace in life, because if a game does this to you then I forecast troubled waters in your life. Good luck to you in all your endeavors.